The argument of good teams draw is a given but how about a team like the brewers? They have outdrawn the Sox since 2005 and their success rate hasnt been as good. Attendance doesnt have to predicated on the area around the park but the experience in the park and accessibility to the park. As Ive said many times before, some people dont like going into the city, some people dont like taking public transportation and the people that do have the cubs for that. Two parks in the city is one too many.

....let me put it another way. I have a family and live out in western DuPage. I try to go to about 5 games a year....some years it turns out to be less than that. Sorry, life is busy. But, when I talk about time constraints, etc. that keep me from going to more games, I get accused of "making excuses" for not going to more games even from fellow Sox fans on WSI (this is not aimed at anyone or any post in this thread, but it has happened before in past years in other threads).

However, where I live, I am surrounded by a large majority of Cubs fan families and many of them maybe go to 1 or 2 games and some don't necessarily go every year. They have the same reasons as I do: time constraints, cost, etc. I've have never heard anyone question their loyalty or support of their team. EVER. Being a fan of a popular team that has a huge fan base and draws huge crowds makes them "great fans" even if they hardly go to any games. I, on the other hand, have to often defend the support of my team - even to fellow Sox fans - despite my efforts to go to at least a handful of games every year. Go figure.

I'm probably in the minority here but it doesn't matter where the Sox play to me, I don't care if its in the middle of a parking lot or in Addison or in some great neighborhood in the city. I go to the park for 2 reasons, to see the team I have had a love affair with for over 60 years and to see them win. Nothing else matters, I don't need exploding scoreboards or sausage races or ear deafening rock music. I don't need a ballpark surrounded by restaurants and bars. I still get up there every 2 years or so and the trip is always planned after looking at the schedule to make sure the Sox are in town. We make it over to TB every year also to see the Sox. What I do want from the Sox are a competitive team, fair prices for tickets, fair parking fees and concessions. I also love organ music at the park, Nancy was the greatest.

Right, but we're the diehard fans, the Sox aren't, and shouldn't, be marketing to us, we're going to come to games no matter what. The problem is the Sox right now probably draw, on average, 5% of the fairweather/tourist market in Chicago because if the team's not winning, there really is no other reason to go to a game at the Cell.

As Ive said many times before, some people dont like going into the city, some people dont like taking public transportation and the people that do have the cubs for that. Two parks in the city is one too many.

Then why didn't the Cubs just pounce on that opportunity? Rosemont would have bent over backwards to lure them from the city. There's a reason the Ricketts are about to spend another half a billion dollars of their own money to stay in Chicago, moving to the suburbs would be an enormous, historical blunder. You can keep advocating for the minority of suburbanites who don't want to drive to the city or ride the L, but they're a distinct minority. You can't make everyone happy, but you don't disenfranchise the majority for the sake of the minority.

If the argument is that there is only room for one MLB team in Chicago, while there is a market for a MLB team in the suburbs, the SOX are the logical team to move when the time comes. As mentioned, the core SOX fanbase is no longer on the south side of Chicago.

Rickett's should throw everything he can into rebuilding Wrigely in it's current footprint/location, even if that means shutting the ballpark down for 1-2 seasons as he rebuilds the grandstands, concourses and upper deck from the ground up. If he does, he will pretty much be guaranteed 3 million fans each season wanting to visit historic Wrigley Field and perhaps actually see a Cubs game while they are there.

I've enjoyed going to SOX/Cubs game at Wrigely due to the party atmosphere. I wish the SOX had a similar atmosphere outside their ballpark but no matter how much they try, they still only have the nicest house in a bad neighborhood.

If the argument is that there is only room for one MLB team in Chicago, while there is a market for a MLB team in the suburbs, the SOX are the logical team to move when the time comes. As mentioned, the core SOX fanbase is no longer on the south side of Chicago.

I think it's quite the opposite, if there was one team that could have theoretically convinced their fanbase to follow them to the burbs, it might have been the Cubs (still think that would have been an enormous long-term mistake, however). You guys don't really think all the people crammed at Cubs games are only from the city's North Side neighborhoods, do you? Frankly, the Cubs' following the suburbs is probably greater than the Sox's. The Sox, OTOH, are already suffering from building a modern era ballpark a year before they became obsolete, another gigantic misstep and in a few years they'll essentially be the A's.

Then why didn't the Cubs just pounce on that opportunity? Rosemont would have bent over backwards to lure them from the city. There's a reason the Ricketts are about to spend another half a billion dollars of their own money to stay in Chicago, moving to the suburbs would be an enormous, historical blunder. You can keep advocating for the minority of suburbanites who don't want to drive to the city or ride the L, but they're a distinct minority. You can't make everyone happy, but you don't disenfranchise the majority for the sake of the minority.

You ever think that only so many people want to go to city ball park? And that cubs park for all reasons previously mentioned reasons (location, historical etc) is the preferred choice for these people? Like it or not, the cubs have a stranglehold on the fans that want to go to a city ball park. There are not enough of these type of fans to support two, only nyc can do this, no other city has.

You ever think that only so many people want to go to city ball park? And that cubs park for all reasons previously mentioned reasons (location, historical etc) is the preferred choice for these people? Like it or not, the cubs have a stranglehold on the fans that want to go to a city ball park. There are not enough of these type of fans to support two, only nyc can do this, no other city has.

What makes you think the Chicago area doesn't have enough fans to support 2 city ballparks? What defines a city ballpark? Flushing is right on the limits of NYC and Citi Field is surrounded by parking lots.

The Cub "stranglehold" is because of marketing their old ballpark. The Sox attendance rises and falls with the quality of the team, just like the vast majority of other MLB franchises. There is no reason to think that Chicago can't support the White Sox in the city when they've been in the same neighborhood longer than any other team in baseball.

You ever think that only so many people want to go to city ball park? And that cubs park for all reasons previously mentioned reasons (location, historical etc) is the preferred choice for these people? Like it or not, the cubs have a stranglehold on the fans that want to go to a city ball park. There are not enough of these type of fans to support two, only nyc can do this, no other city has.

The Sox moving to the suburbs would have made them an even bigger afterthought in the media, especially Addison.

Also, why any team would move away from the main population center in the region is mind boggling. Not that Bridgeport is that spot but it is much closer than Addison.

More people live in the burbs than in the city. That's a fact. Bridgeport is not the center of anything as just to the east is 100 miles of lake.
Looking at a map of the Metro area I would say that Elmhurst is probably the population center of the metro area with an equal amount of people living north, south, east and west. This is a guess but I bet I'm not far off. A stadium located around I 294 and I 290 would not be a bad spot. The CTA could extend the line that runs on the Ike.

__________________Coming up to bat for our White Sox is the Mighty Mite, Nelson Fox.

More people live in the burbs than in the city. That's a fact. Bridgeport is not the center of anything as just to the east is 100 miles of lake.
Looking at a map of the Metro area I would say that Elmhurst is probably the population center of the metro area with an equal amount of people living north, south, east and west. This is a guess but I bet I'm not far off. A stadium located around I 294 and I 290 would not be a bad spot. The CTA could extend the line that runs on the Ike.

Uh, the city still accounts for about 1/4 to 1/5 of the area's population (depending on where you draw the line) and guessing the center is in Elmhurst makes me think you are unaware of this thing we call "Indiana." Either way, regardless of where the point is on a map, the bottom line is that doesn't mean anything because for planning purposes, the center of the transporation network is far more important. People don't travel "as the crow flies," so to speak, they're reliant on the infrastructure that is already in place. Looking at the metro area and thinking the Sox could be successful anywhere but the central core of the city makes me think you have not realized the '80s ended.

It's a cute thought, guys, but ultimately it's a terrible idea. As has been pointed out, there's a reason literally nobody has already done it.

Uh, the city still accounts for about 1/4 to 1/5 of the area's population (depending on where you draw the line) and guessing the center is in Elmhurst makes me think you are unaware of this thing we call "Indiana." Either way, regardless of where the point is on a map, the bottom line is that doesn't mean anything because for planning purposes, the center of the transporation network is far more important. People don't travel "as the crow flies," so to speak, they're reliant on the infrastructure that is already in place. Looking at the metro area and thinking the Sox could be successful anywhere but the central core of the city makes me think you have not realized the '80s ended.

It's a cute thought, guys, but ultimately it's a terrible idea. As has been pointed out, there's a reason literally nobody has already done it.

I don't get the 1980s reference, I do know that when I was growing up in the 50s the city had 3.6 million people, it's now around 2.7. Are all those people coming back? Chicago is now number 3 in the USA and before long the Dallas and Houston areas will have more people.
When we visit up there we stay with my sister in Arlington Heights and I know it's a lot easier to get to somewhere like Addison or Elmhurst than to 35th and Shields.
I believe you live in the city so you are not going to agree with any talk about suburbia being a better location for the Sox, but based on how the Sox have performed at the box office at USCF since they moved in I believe they would have done better out west. We will never know for sure but if you were to pin down JR, he would say the same thing. The Sox didn't pull Addison out of a hat and say let's go there, they did extensive demographic studies and came up with Addison.

I don't get the 1980s reference, I do know that when I was growing up in the 50s the city had 3.6 million people, it's now around 2.7. Are all those people coming back? Chicago is now number 3 in the USA and before long the Dallas and Houston areas will have more people.
When we visit up there we stay with my sister in Arlington Heights and I know it's a lot easier to get to somewhere like Addison or Elmhurst than to 35th and Shields.
I believe you live in the city so you are not going to agree with any talk about suburbia being a better location for the Sox, but based on how the Sox have performed at the box office at USCF since they moved in I believe they would have done better out west. We will never know for sure but if you were to pin down JR, he would say the same thing. The Sox didn't pull Addison out of a hat and say let's go there, they did extensive demographic studies and came up with Addison.

I see absolutely no reason to think that this is true. As you said, you can't prove the negative, whether or not the Sox would have drawn any better at the gate if they were in Addison (everything else being equal). Sure, your sister in Arlington Heights might have an easier time getting to games. But, lots of those families originally from the south side moved to southern suburbs. It wouldn't be any easier to get to Addison from Oak Lawn than it is to get to Bridgeport from Oak Lawn.

Those demographic studies would have been done in 1986. The city has changed drastically since then, with lots of gentrification and people (read: money) moving back to the city. As the economic and housing crisis has, arguably, hurt suburbia and exurbia moreso than the city itself, I suspect that a suburban ballpark would also be worse off in these last few years than an urban park. Those demographic shifts from city to suburbia/exurbia in the last few decades are not unique to the Chicagoland area. Despite that, there has been a movement in new ballpark construction from suburb to city, not the other way around. I think there is a good reason behind that.